Thursday, November 5, 2015

End sexual apartheid in sport!

Sport teaches boys and men that misogyny is to be praised. And sport for too long has taught girls and women that their only place in this world is behind the white line cheering the boys on (or on the field wearing skimpy clothing as cheerleaders). The sexual subordination of women to men in gender-segregated spaces is not logical, natural or biological. If you believe in gender equality then there can be no justification for sex segregation in sport any longer.

I'm all for it. No more men's or women's leagues. Let the boys play on the "girls' teams". There is no better way to teach the blank slaters once and for all.

54 comments:

this telegraph article was written by that Proudman woman. do you think they are really this mad and deranged or is this just an elaborate attempt to manufacture outrage to earn her living as a professional feminist.

Anyone with any sense knows that gender segregation is specifically so women can participate, otherwise they wouldn't even make a team. Then again we are talking about leftoids, so basic logic is too much to expect.

Feminists are a little girl on a mile-long stretch of sandy beach that's empty except for one little boy who's building an awesome sandcastle. She doesn't want to build her own sandcastle in the vast space available. She doesn't want to help him build his sandcastle and make it even better. She just wants to kick his sandcastle into nothing, so they can both cry in the ruins.

What would/will happen is that the female players will have to be given equal time playing, regardless of how pathetic their efforts, in the interest of "fairness". So the guys will be benched while we are forced to watch femsports take over male sports like football, soccer, etc.

If you don't believe this, just go to your local little league field and watch the girls be forced into the teams for "fairness", and allowed to play when they should, at best, be benched - or realistically, dismissed from the team.

This is always fun to joke about, but MEN don't really want to play on women's teams. The shit you would get from your friends would be brutal.

AmyJ said... The chick who tried out to be an NFL kicker comes to mind. All that hype over how she could have been the first female in the NFL was made even more hilarious by how pathetically she performed.

Ironically, there probably are women soccer players who, if they worked on it, could be half decent (maybe not pro level) field goal kickers, but the woman who tried out was lame. VD would know better than me, but I'd think that, with a year or two of practice, a world class woman soccer player could be a decent field goal kicker, maybe with somewhat less distance than most (pro level) guys. Think of how much less distance the women golfers get than the men.

"there probably are women soccer players who, if they worked on it, could be half decent (maybe not pro level) field goal kickers"

To kick field goals, it's not enough to just be capable of kicking a ball straight and far. You have to be able to:

- kick it HIGH (to clear the defenders' outstretched hands) and straight, and far.- Be cool as 350-pound men charge you as you stand in the most vulnerable position imaginable, on your toes in a standing split. - Be able to dive into the melee or run and protect the ball with your hands, as 350-pound men try to annihilate you, on trick or botched plays.

All women have to do to be top soccer players is cut their hair and pretend to be their twin brothers. And as long as they don't shower with the guys, no one will notice that they are really hot chicks. I learned this from watching Disney so it must be true.

The logic of that woman is awful. You can't call men misogynistic while also demanding they compete directly with women. That's asking for special favors to even the playing field. This rare chance of one women winner when they're riding a horse that's doing the actual running is indeed a bizarre example of equality.

Don't know much about racing horses, but wouldn't this be one of those games where women would be at a distinct advantage for being lighter than men?

**

Weight isn't an issue, that's all evened out. What's interesting is that with the King's sports, the jockey is the brains of the outfit, the horse is the actual athlete. Yes the jockey needs balance and coordination, but the horse is the one doing the physical work.

Ms Proudman, who describes herself as a "fearless feminist" on her Twitter biography, replied to Mr Carter-Silk, "I find your message offensive. I am on linked-in for business purposes not to be approached about my physical appearance or to be objectified by sexist men.

Womanese translation: I find you unattractive and therefore I am repelled by your timid, limp wristed advances. If I found you attractive this would be a drastically different matter entirely but it isn't.

The eroticization of women's physical appearance is a way of exercising power over women. It silences women's professional attributes as their physical appearance becomes the subject.

No idea what "eroticization" is but I'm sure I'm not feeling it for her. She looks like a slightly trim Lena Dunham to me. And of course what she is really saying here is; you are doing this entirely wrong. I am a ball buster, so I need balls to bust. Clearly you have none.

Unacceptable and misogynistic behaviour.

Any kind of male behavior.

Think twice before sending another woman (half your age) such a sexist message."

Don't pretend you are even half the man my father is. And again, I am enraged beyond words that a man whom I have not yet even shit-tested, managed to fail my shit tests just by contacting me.

The tragedy here is that the Telegraph was at one time a very conservative newspaper.

The idea of putting women on the sports field to show feminism is idiotic is itself idiotic. No man wants to do that. No woman really wants to do that either. It's outsiders in the media and academia who push that crap, in addition to bitter angry loser guys who probably don't play sports. The fact of physical difference needs no proof. It's obvious.

Plus it's unnatural and a sign of a defective character to want to beat women physically, whether with violence or on the sports field. You're already superior to them physically and in a lot of other ways. You shouldn't be so try hard about proving it. We are complimentary in a real physical sense, and this is what we should aim for, not bitter revenge against feminism.

Instead of fighting for the logical extension of feminism to the military draft or the sports field, we should simply always point out how it has made everyone miserable, man and woman, and it's dysgenic.

It is certainly not obvious to most women who play at being feminists. The Feminazi's know the biology, they simply seek to change men to suit their wish for reality.

"Plus it's unnatural and a sign of a defective character to want to beat women physically, whether with violence or on the sports field. "

Damn, some serious cuckage here. It's unnatural for women to compete with men in any way. Femininity is submissive and nurturing, and status is accrued by who the woman can attract and how he can provision her. Women who try to enter man's existence are subjected to the violence that is man's reality, namely competition, struggle, having the only one who cares about your existence is you, and all the other pain and fighting that is man's reality.

The reason behind the degeneration of society is the freedom that has been granted to women by beta cucks to avoid reality through BigGovDaddy. When women are exposed to violence and instability they rush to form traditional relationships, and they keep their nose out of man's politics.

"Instead of fighting for the logical extension of feminism to the military draft or the sports field, we should simply always point out how it has made everyone miserable, man and woman, and it's dysgenic. "

So, no action then? You'll just use your awesome dialectic and they'll fall in line with your obviously correct arguments? I think I might hear some #cuck cuck cucking around here.

You seek to remove consequences from actions. No matter how you phrase it, that makes you a #cuckservative.

All female teams hereby open to males. To do less is to betray the Laws of Equality upon which our government has operated for many decades. Females who will not allow males on their team require jail time and re-education to conform to the Laws of Equality.

All female locker rooms and dressing rooms open to males. Again, to do less is an offense against the Laws of Equality. Persons who refuse male presence in female locker rooms are Perpetrators. Jail time and re-education for them all. At personal expense.

@Mansizedtarget Your inner SJW is showing. And as for your other comment, they don't care that it would make everyone miserable. Heck, they don't even care if it would bring Western Civilization down. They only care about the narrative.

"The reason behind the degeneration of society is the freedom that has been granted to women by beta cucks to avoid reality through BigGovDaddy"

From a socio-poli-legal p.o.v., that's about 80 percent of it, right there. Sure other elements apply -- racialism, political-immigration, the celebration of homos, so forth. But the death-spiral of America isn't going to change until your point has been overturned. And currently, the issue is still being denied en masse, as it's been the engine for the Glutfest in New Amerika over the past century. Many people cleaned-up via the gynarchy, and now that it's institutionalized and incentivized, it's difficult to budge, even with the nation clearly croaking spiritually, morally, and economically right before us.

The differences may be, but the conclusions aren't. The other day I was listening to four guys on the radio, one of them a former pro football player, talk about a woman who played softball in college and has now been hired by a major league baseball team as a pitching strength coach or something. These guys were speculating about how many hits she could get in a full game of 27 trips to the plate against MLB pitching. Not one of them laughed hysterically and said, "Are you nuts? Do you know how hard it is to hit a baseball? Top baseball pitchers reach 100; top softball pitchers near 60; and the softball is bigger. She'd be lucky to get the bat around in time to make contact at all, let alone put a ball in play. You guys are nuts."

No, they all mused and guessed somewhere between 3 and 7, if I remember right. In other words, they figured a woman who had never faced pro hardball pitching before would do about as well as a bad pro hitter (like most pitchers) who has been practicing against it for years. Just because.

There is nothing wrong with the cuckservative charge being leveled when it's appropriate, as in the case of open borders zealots. It distorts clear thinking to use it to mean, "someone whom I disagree with" in general. This is when a new and useful insight becomes mere ideology.

As for modern beta boys enabling the armies of single moms and allowing themselves to be dispossessed by career women, their protective instinct is misplaced. But all societies that are the least bit healthy protect women. Ours has failed by failing to protect them from their selves, their worst instincts, their hypergamy, and the like. But to recognize that, should not mean to a psychologically healthy man that he now wants to go to war against women and hurt them as an end itself. That is nihilism, plain and simple. There is no inner SJW or Cuck in me, of this I can assure anyone who does not have Aspberger's Syndrome.

To my critics above, you argue like women. No logic, no proof, just name-calling and attempts at ostracism. This is not a why for a man to make a point, but while your anger at the current state of affairs is understandable, you may want to do some introspection on the ways you fall short of thinking and acting like a man, as opposed to a mere "male," and a whiny one at that.

Instead of fighting for the logical extension of feminism to the military draft or the sports field, we should simply always point out how it has made everyone miserable, man and woman, and it's dysgenic.

You've argued with women before.

Think the strategy you offered would work?

Or would you get a helping of "Not all women are like that" "In my experience" and "You're just angry and scared of strong women"

My point is, you'd attempt to influence an emotional creature with logic.

Only to non-delusional people. Our society spends a lot of effort trying to turn out delusion.

I remember watching "She's the Man" with a mixed group from Youth Group. This is that stupid movie genericviews referred to where a girl pretended to be here twin brother to play soccer. Because the movie showed her struggling a little bit to get onto the boys team they concluded that it was unrealistic, because surely as a top high school girl, she'd be just as good, or at least nearly as good as the top high school male players.

Thomas Sowell said it best I think two decades ago: Anyone that believes in equality should push for integration in the Olympics and prisons. Not even RR is dumb enough to ask for integration. The stupid bitch knows you'd never see her name in the rankings again.

"Plus it's unnatural and a sign of a defective character to want to beat women physically, whether with violence or on the sports field. "

Bullshit. It's justice and a damned valuable object lesson. They're begging for it. Further, a stupid pushy broad that gets bloodied in the ring or on the field will be far less likely to run her fool mouth when actual safety or life (be they hers or surrounding mens') are at risk.

There's an age range about 10-14 where many girls have had their big growth spurt and boys have not. In low-contact team sports, these girls' temporary advantage in size and reach, together with less desire to "go it alone", can put them on a roughly equal footing with the smaller pocket-rocket boys. But by the time the boys are turning 14 or 15, they've also had their growth spurt also and figured out that they can dominate more as a pack than as individuals, at which point "serious" mixed sport is unfair to the boys as they need to check themselves to avoid hurting girls on the field.

This doesn't necessarily apply to "mixed social" sport, which is almost always played at a lower intensity - for good reason. But even in social sport, watch the transfer of momentum when a guy accidentally bumps a girl (compared to when two guys contact).

What a nonsense of this SJW. Sport is about physical activity and mental strength. Men are completely different when it comes to this. If you don’t believe it: open up your eyes! Or ask a three year old – he will tell you.

MidKnight (#138) said.. "I once looked up some of the numbers. The world-record breaking women freestyle swimmer from the last Olympics isn't fast enough to make the cut to be CONSIDERED for the US Men's team."

Yep, just look at the Olympic medal rankings. The female gold medallist is frequently behind the fourth or fifth ranking Male runner up.

You seek to remove consequences from actions. No matter how you phrase it, that makes you a #cuckservative.

You need to learn that "cuckservative" does not mean everyone and everything with which you disagree. You could have said "whiteknighting" or you could have correctly pointed out the inutility of dialectic in a rhetorical battle, but that's just absurd.

To my critics above, you argue like women. No logic, no proof, just name-calling and attempts at ostracism.

You're ignorant. Rhetoric is not limited to women. You argue like a stupid man who thinks he can convince Chinese-speakers by speaking English.

Furthermore, you are yourself now "arguing like a woman" and engaging in rhetoric meant to provoke an emotional response. So, you're not only ignorant and ineffective, but hypocritical.

Even if we grant the male superiority in size and strength, there's no reason to have a separate women's HS/College basketball, volleyball, track and field, softball, golf, tennis or gymnastics team. All these are non-contact sports which women should theoretically be able to compete in. Just have one uni-sex team.